Political Punch

I am a rural, small-town American. I’m not bitter. I don’t carry a gun but I do believe in the Holy Bible and God.

Hillary won in Pennsylvania, despite being outspent by Obama's “mega bucks” and bombardment on TV, radio, internet ads, phone calls, etc., etc., because we believe Hillary to be the better candidate --- pure and simple. True Americans cannot be bought!

Hillary was GREAT in the Pennsylvania debate --- Obama did quite poorly.

OBAMA HAS REFUSED TO DEBATE IN NORTH CAROLINA. He apparently can only read a pretty scripted speech from a teleprompter --- And he wants to run our country??? NO WAY!

Does he plan to have Jeremiah Wright spewing “God Damn America” from the White House? It’s bad enough he did it in a church of God.

Are Obama’s frequent visitors going to be their anti-American, terrorist friends: bomber Ayers, Farrakhan, Rezko, among others?

We need someone to show respect to ALL Americans, regardless of where they live.

GOD BLESS AMERICA --- HILLARY 2008!

hillary wins by 10% - must be racism, hicks, whatever, not really a big win....

obama wins by .01% - obama continues to show his strength....

funny how this works.

msm fed this crap for months, no longer working. we're onto the game.

obama may or may not "win" the nomination. will never win the general.

hillary or mccain, no other option.

The fact is: she needed a 20+% win in all the remaining states, including PA in order to even up the pledged delegates. The fact that she only got half of what she needed does not seem like a win.

This is the single largest delegate pool left, and she scored an increase of less than 20 when she's down by 120+

It's interesting that the combined vote totals of McCain, Paul, and Huckabee don't equal the votes of the loser Obama.

In an industrial state, the so called Republicans and the MSM special interest groups can't get 10% of the population out to vote. Perhaps MSM special interest group bias and marginalization has become so blatant that it's too much to stomach.

Listening to announcers after the contest was sickening. "Blacks are voting for", "Women are voting for", "Blue Collar workers are voting for", "White people are voting for", "Young people are voting for", "Elderly people ate voting for", "Obama is a candidate with serious problems", "Hillary squashed Obama", "Obama spent an extraordinary amount of money and failed", and on and on. TV personalities were spewing spittle because they were so worked up about the opportunity to trounce on someone who is not their choice.

I just don't understand how Obama better than halves Clinton's lead in a state that's demographically tailor made for her to win, and it's a "huge win" for Clinton. You've really got to check your spin Tapper.

All these people insisting it is racism.

Why did America beg Gen Colin Powell to run several times?

He would have won as a Republican no less.

Obama is lying to you about racism being the reason people aren't voting for him.

It is because of HIS issues. Can't debate, glass jaw, can't handle 8 questions, Rezko, Ayers, Auchi, Wright, Michelle/Heinz-Kerry.

Obama promises hope but never delivers on the specifics. Why doesn't his supports insist on details instead of clinging to hollow rhetoric?

There is no valid or truly relevant popular vote tally in the Democratic party nomination process. The so-called "popular vote" tally doesn't even include the many caucus states, for example.

Maybe the Democrats can change the system to all primaries next time, or winner take all delegate counts in each state, but as for this year, Obama has an almost 100% certain lock on winning the delegate count, the only authorized metric based on public participation.

The only way Hillary can win right now is for the superdelegates to override Obama's delegate lead established by public participation. This just won't happen because overturning the public participation process would split the party for a long time to come. Democratic participation in the general election would probalby fall off and Hillary would likely lose to McCain.

Pennsylvania actually proved that Obama is resilient enough to stand up against Hillary adequately in a state she was universally favored to win. One could say he is running out the clock, though he may put away the race in Indiana and/or North Carolina. As things stand, the superdelegates will most likely end the race in Obama's favor.

Teri B, Spoken like a true Clinton supporter....twist facts to suit the end result...

Thank you Pennsylvanians for prolonging the agony of this campaign and the prospect of seeing Bill and Hillary's slash and burn politics for at least the next two weeks. Hopefully, folks in Indiana and North Carolina will put the Democratic Party out its misery and send the Clintons packing.

Clinton DOES lead in the popular vote.

I wonder, has anyone even bothered to ask thems what is the purpose, intent, or even moral relevance of these DNC "rules" Howard Dean has imposed upon the voters of Florida and Michigan, particularly when balanced against the basic civil right to vote and have one's vote counted?

Let's ask ourselves about our deep moral convictions regarding the DNC's rules that were purportedly violated by Florida and Michigan, which Howard Dean claims warranted the DNC's actions of stripping them of their representation. Florida and Michigan moved up their primaries, like numerous other states, states that weren't punished in the most drastic way possible, by stripping the voters in those states of their Constitutional rights to representation. Only Florida and Michigan had their representation at the convention stripped. And why? Do any of us actually care whether Florida, Michigan, California, South Carolina, New Hampshire or any of the other states' legislatures moved up their primaries? Does moving up the date of their primaries disenfranchise some minority segments of those states' populations? Did moving the dates create some barrier that would make it more difficult for voters to vote, like historic injustices like applying literacy tests, or land ownership requirements, or any other historically egregious voting equity violations? No. No, there was nothing patently unfair, or even comprehensibly wrong with these states moving up their primaries. What IS unfair, unreasonable, and IMO unconstitutional is denying only these two states equal representation.

And what is the significance of this strange checker board arrangement of primary dates anyway? In fact, in recent history the votes of the citizens in Iowa, New Hampshire, and other early primary states carry vastly more significant weight than that of their fellow citizens in other states, based upon this arbitrary primary schedule. What of Constitutional equal protection provisions?

None of it makes a lot of common sense, yet astonishingly, Obama supporters, such as Howard Dean, expect us to blindly accept and support this dubious, twisted travesty of democracy they're trying to sell the American public? WHAT?!? Have the American people lost the ability to reason? If these kinds of shenanigans took place in an election the United States had undertaken to monitor in a fledgling democracy, we would declare the election a fraud.

The fact is that Florida's and Michigan's votes WERE officially and legally certified by the Secretaries of State in those states. Much as the "rules is rules" advocates like to talk about the DNC's rules, they refuse to acknowledge the controlling voting LAWS. These figures ARE part of the National popular vote totals.

Now, you might complain that the candidates didn't campaign in Florida - well, then Senators Obama and Clinton are on equal footing there, and official elections were held and record numbers of voters went to the polls in Florida and VOTED.

Or you might complain that Sen. Obama's name wasn't on the ballots in Michigan, while Clinton and Obama Supporter Dodd did not choose to withdraw their names from the ballots.

And what sort of legal argument Senator Obama might use to make his case that these voters should be stripped of representation? He removed his own name from Michigan's ballots voluntarily, but apparently he thought better of removing his name from Florida's ballots. Further, in both of these states, when given opportunities to correct the wrong DNC Chairman Dean perpetrated against the voters in these states, by agreeing to revotes, Sen. Obama alone blocked all attempts at revotes, knowing that Sen. Clinton had, and still has, significant leads in polls those states. Astonishingly, in reality, Sen. Obama is arguing that democratic voters in Florida and Michigan, so important to any victory for the democratic party's nominee in the general election, should pay the ultimate consequence, disenfranchisement, for the actions of their republican majority legislatures. Yet he is unwilling to live with the consequences of removing his name from Michigan's ballot, and he is unwilling to live with the legally certified voting results. Hmmm . . . this seems like a self-serving and meritless argument.

So, yes - Senator Clinton now leads in the popular vote, and I'd like to remind the Super Delegates (who few of us even knew existed a year ago), that Senator Obama said, in his speech after Super Tuesday that the Super Delegates must not overturn the will of the people, as well as what Speaker Pelosi said recently, that "[i]t will do great harm to the Democratic party if it is perceived that the Super Delegates overturn the will of the people. That is consistent with the delegate voting his or her conscience.”

There are several states who have yet to vote in this primary, and THIS TIME, their votes will matter as much as any other voters in the country - INCLUDING Florida's and Michigan's voters, whose votes MUST be counted - that is, if we still consider ourselves a free and democratic country.

One thing among many that I am sick of hearing broadcast by the media is the myth that Obama is so " overwhelmingly " getting the young " and " college educated vote, leaving the impression of course that the more intelligent and better educated prefer Obama to Clinton. Well I hate to inform them butl not all of the well educated are still in College. In the Pennsylvania primary only 51% of those with a College degree voted for Obama to 49% for Clinton and those with Post Graduate degrees voted 51% for Clinton and 49% Obama. So even though a lot of the young are voting for Obama it does not meant that the better educated are also overwhelmingly voting for Obama as is being implied. In other words, though I really hate to bust your biased bubble, a lot of the better educated are also voting for Clinton and not everyone voting for her are just a bunch of frightened old farts and those uneducated " bitter " white hicks that turn to religion and guns that Obama was referring to.

Well sadly we are still at the same point as we were 6 weeks ago. Nothing lost, and nothing gained.

Next up May 6th

OBama08

Michelle Obama -- first lady.

Think about it!

LOM posted:

"From everything that I've been able to gather, the DNC stripped MI and FL of their delegates. I couldn't find anything that said that the popular vote couldn't or shouldn't be considered. The popular vote was certified in Florida by the Secretary of State. The vote count should be included in the total popular vote and since there are many superdelegates who are using this as a measure for their final decision, it would be foolish not to take Florida or Michigan into consideration."

LOM, You make a great point. There is nothing precluding counting of FL and MI in the popular vote. You are dead on!!

Stop playing the race card Ron Fournier.

Obama's biggest problems are
1) Barack Obama
2) Michelle Obama
3)see #1 and #2.

Obama is the King of Negative Campaigning and the King of Pointing the Finger at Hillary and Blaming Her for His Failings! Obama is King of Giving Hillary the Finger as well! When will Obama realize that this campaign has been on easy street compared to the general election? The whining and complaining, the refusing interviews and debates, the need to vacation in the Virgin Islands, shows an arrogant, liberal elitist who does not have what it takes to be president. Obama had 7 WEEKS and 11 MILLION DOLLARS to put Hillary away? Wake up DNC and superdelegates, Obama is not the man for the job, you need a woman to take out John McCain....

Just look at all the whining. I love it!

I am sick of people and pundits blaming Obama's loss on Hillary and/or racism. Did the NYTimes and others watch the debates? He is clueless, very weak candidate and unqualified. People should stop making excuses for Obama.

And Obama isn't taking Clinton to the map? Just because she is behind in the delegate count doesn't mean its her fault that the campaign is at times negative. They both have sent out misleading mailers, they both have had negative tv ads, they both have had surrogates say things about the other that they shouldn't. So the notion that Clinton is the one who is negative is absolutely absurd.

GO Hillary , KEEP FIGHTING!!!!!!